Where do they get these figures?

[jersey777]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/flight-attendants-dont-trust-a.html




I have absolutely no doubt about AA's "fuzzy math". There is also a very interesting video on youtube from the APFA with respected airline economist Dan Akins pointing out the differences in how airlines calculate costs.

 

[FWAAA]

I've watched the three part video series where he explains that AA's international staffing levels are much higher than the others, including even UA, which flies substantially more 3-class international flights than AA. AA has 47 777s outfitted with three classes, while all UA international widebodies feature 3-class service including 747s, 777s and 763s. Akins showed UA's international staffing as much lower than AA, which appears to be in error, since all UA international widebodies feature 3-class service.

I would think that 2-class widebody FA staffing would be fairly consistent no matter which airline, so AA's extensive 763 international flights would have similar staffing to DL's extensive 763 2-class staffing.

Another thing: aren't staffing levels somewhat affected by the APFA? I seem to recall a grievance over AA 777 staffing that resulted in a victory for APFA and an understaffing pay award. Sure, the company determines the staffing level, but if it's unfairly too lean, the APFA can (and has) challenged the company's staffing levels.

Maybe he adjusts his presentation to his audience, but IMO, he'd sound a little more professional if he toned down the name-calling and instead focused on the numbers. Sometimes it's better to let the audience come to their own conclusion that the company's numbers are "crap" and "garbage" rather than to have the high-priced paid consultant say it over and over again.

 

[IORFA]

If you listened, he explained why UA was lower. The reason is the very 747's you mentioned, plus I think their 777's have a few more people as well. The difference is that the staffing is spread over more people/seats with the 747's added. That makes the difference in the calculations. Although, since I only work for AA, I only know what our staffing levels are for sure. Rumor has it that US staffing levels are extremely low. I am sure DL UA and CO are all very similar with AA. Remember that AA domestic costs were directly in the middle of the pact. If AA went to a strictly 2 class service, the international staffing differential would lower dramatically overnight. More people and less F/A's onboard. Problem is that AA has chosen to offer a 3 class service on the 777's. That is only their choice to make.

 

[AANOTOK]

Sometimes it's better to let the audience come to their own conclusion that the company's unions numbers are "crap" and "garbage" rather than to have the high-priced paid consultant say it over and over again.

😀

 

[Skymess]

I've watched the three part video series where he explains that AA's international staffing levels are much higher than the others, including even UA, which flies substantially more 3-class international flights than AA. AA has 47 777s outfitted with three classes, while all UA international widebodies feature 3-class service including 747s, 777s and 763s. Akins showed UA's international staffing as much lower than AA, which appears to be in error, since all UA international widebodies feature 3-class service.

I would think that 2-class widebody FA staffing would be fairly consistent no matter which airline, so AA's extensive 763 international flights would have similar staffing to DL's extensive 763 2-class staffing.

Another thing: aren't staffing levels somewhat affected by the APFA? I seem to recall a grievance over AA 777 staffing that resulted in a victory for APFA and an understaffing pay award. Sure, the company determines the staffing level, but if it's unfairly too lean, the APFA can (and has) challenged the company's staffing levels.

Maybe he adjusts his presentation to his audience, but IMO, he'd sound a little more professional if he toned down the name-calling and instead focused on the numbers. Sometimes it's better to let the audience come to their own conclusion that the company's numbers are "crap" and "garbage" rather than to have the high-priced paid consultant say it over and over again.

Staffing levels at each airline are not consistent. The only thing that is the same for all US airlines is the FAA minimum crew which requires 1 FA per every 50 passengers. Staffing levels per plane above minimum crew depend on what service each company wants to provide as well as the contractual agreement with the flight attendants. Some airlines staff with only minimum crew on all aircraft. AA staffs minimums on most domestic narrowbody aircraft.

I have a few very good friends at United. We compare staffing notes, amongst other things.. They tend to staff an average of about 2 less FAs than AA on widebody airplanes. One of the reasons for this is that AA staffs a dedicated galley position whose main job function is to prepare the meals and carts for the aisle flight attendants. On certain flights UA aisle FAs share the galley responsibility and work both galley and aisle.

 

[commavia]

I watched all three of the APFA's videos with the "indisputable facts" from the union's "heavyweight champion" economist, as well. They were interesting, and it was good to finally get the union's side of the argument as opposed to just AANegotiations.com

But, alas, I'm hoping somebody can help me figure something out.

If I'm hearing him right - and reading his slides correctly - he acknowledges (at minute 4:43 in video 1) that AA's unit flight attendant costs are, indeed, the highest in the U.S. He even says, "this makes the company's argument."

He berates the company for being dishonest and disingenuous for using the "wrong" metric to measure costs on a unit basis (per hour) and instead says that the generally-accepted measure of unit costs in the industry is per ASM (which, of course, it is).

But then he shows the chart showing that the AA flight attendant costs using his own preferred metric - per ASM - is, indeed, the highest.

And then he goes on to suggest that the reason for this is because AA has "chosen" to configure its airplanes for premium service, and thus staffs their flights with more flight attendants than other airlines.

So, in summary, he says that AA's flight attendants are the most expensive in America, and says that the big reason why is because AA employs so many flight attendants.

Following that conclusion to it's logical end, that would lead most reasonable people to conclude that if the objective for the company is to become more cost-competitive (and, admittedly, not everyone believes that should be the objective), and since AMR does, indeed, spend more on flight attendants than any of their competitors, the obvious solution is to just lay off tons of flight attendants. Is that the message the APFA wants to be promoting?

I guess my question is this: if the APFA is basically admitting that AA's claims of "highest costs in the industry" are - regardless of metric - correct, and that "over"-staffing is the proximate cause, why on earth would they be advertising this on the internet?

What in these calculations does the APFA think is going to in any way help their case - with the NMB and/or with public opinion?

 

[Ralph]

This thread is about the APFA's negotiations with the company. Please stick to the topic. Posts have been deleted.

 

[FWAAA]

I have a few very good friends at United. We compare staffing notes, amongst other things.. They tend to staff an average of about 2 less FAs than AA on widebody airplanes. One of the reasons for this is that AA staffs a dedicated galley position whose main job function is to prepare the meals and carts for the aisle flight attendants. On certain flights UA aisle FAs share the galley responsibility and work both galley and aisle.

So how willing would you be to see the galley FA position eliminated? I doubt that position exists and is staffed out of the goodness of AA's heart. 😀

Of course AA's decision to operate smaller planes and decreased seating density will increase the FA cost per ASM, but that doesn't change the fact that AA's FAs are somewhat expensive on an hourly basis and tend to work about the fewest hours on average. APFA's top hourly rates are $6/hr higher than UA's, slightly higher than DL's and substantially higher than the NW FAs. The CO rates are higher than AA's

One stat that Akins mentioned didn't make any sense. He claimed that AA was the only airline that had higher FA staffing ratios on international flights than on domestic flights, and that just isn't true. Nearly all airlines now fly with FAA minimums on most domestic flights (excluding the few premium transcons with much higher FA staffing) yet all airlines flying long-haul international flights operate with more than the FAA minimum crews. Perhaps the Form 41 data he used (3rd quarter 2009) was corrupted - as sometimes is the case with the government data.

 

[Skymess]

So how willing would you be to see the galley FA position eliminated? I doubt that position exists and is staffed out of the goodness of AA's heart. 😀

Of course AA's decision to operate smaller planes and decreased seating density will increase the FA cost per ASM, but that doesn't change the fact that AA's FAs are somewhat expensive on an hourly basis and tend to work about the fewest hours on average. APFA's top hourly rates are $6/hr higher than UA's, slightly higher than DL's and substantially higher than the NW FAs. The CO rates are higher than AA's

One stat that Akins mentioned didn't make any sense. He claimed that AA was the only airline that had higher FA staffing ratios on international flights than on domestic flights, and that just isn't true. Nearly all airlines now fly with FAA minimums on most domestic flights (excluding the few premium transcons with much higher FA staffing) yet all airlines flying long-haul international flights operate with more than the FAA minimum crews. Perhaps the Form 41 data he used (3rd quarter 2009) was corrupted - as sometimes is the case with the government data.

I've worked both galley and aisle on flights where we went out understaffed because a crewmember didn't show or called in sick too late to find a replacement. If I had to do it all the time it wouldn't be fun. AA staffs with a dedicated galley because they want to do a nice service. That's one thing that works for them and for us. 😉 I would predict a lot of meal burning going on if it were to change.

I'm not really sure about 'most' other airlines domestic staffing. I do know that we staff more internationally just by speaking with other U.S. crews in customs lines at foreign airports.